 | | Re: How to start a fire.
|
|
(...) Going on the assumption that abortion = murder, your argument is that an unconnected wrong justifies another. This requires that you prove any abortion = murder without condition (not to mention you are still saddled with proving one wrong (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to start a fire.
|
|
(...) Yes. I also have no problem with someone taking the "after morning" pill within the first 2 weeks. (If someone waits longer than that it is their choice and they should deal with the consequeces of their choice.) (...) It is a trailing (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
|
(...) Well, okay. Are you hereby abandoning your previous arguments, in which you've asserted that increased gun control breeds increased crime? I just want to be clear on this. (...) Right, but is it a sustained military action (a la Desert Storm (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to start a fire.
|
|
(...) So you're in favor of embryonic stem-cell research? That's a tangential point (purely for my own curiosity) but it meshes nicely with your overall argument. Anyway, why is a heartbeat the deciding factor? What distinct difference exists (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
|
(...) That is pretty much what I just said. (...) Well the Israelis are using tanks and helicopters. (...) No, the constitution allows the government to call on the people when neccessary. (...) So? (...) Nukes are overrated. One of those defense (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to start a fire.
|
|
(...) Once the cell mass has a heartbeat (which occurs after about 21 days) it is distinctly human. Prior to that the cell mass could technically become anything. (...) Maybe a DNA expert but it would be tough. (...) By your definition, not mine. (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to start a fire.
|
|
(...) I think that's what you'd end up debating, unless you're trying to create or debate law which defines the "acceptable" point for an abortion to take place. Then you'd argue the points you brought up. In general, I think the issue that (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to start a fire.
|
|
(...) True enough. I'm taking it as an abortion debate separate from the Iraq debate. (...) I don't accept "person potential" because, with the advent of cloning, most cells in your body have "person potential." It is not slippery slope reasoning to (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
|
(...) Heh. Our last gun control exchange ended with us becoming pals. Who knows what would happen next? You're 100% correct that my examples were anecdotal, which was kind of my point, too. You're also right that a quantity of rifles makes a (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to start a fire.
|
|
(...) Who determines when it's discernably human? If I put a 64-cell embryo on your desk, would you be able to tell me that it's human? Who do you identify as a credible authority on determining humanness? By pre-brain-functional, I refer to brains (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
